 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nieminen Mika wrote in message <36a21507.0@news.povray.org>...
>
> The question is: Can we do anything about this?
Take a look at "My Voting Philosophy" thread in irtc.general. The objective
part
in the voting process is the technical one. It would be a good idea to set
a range -or
part- of the total to each field, and then divide and assign those points.
To me, such approach
is entirely to everyone, this is, personal. But I think it is a good
idea -to me, again- to unify concepts.
Although such evaluation will be more work and time, it will be worthy
regarding fairness.
Marjorie Graterol
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Pedro Graterol wrote:
> Nieminen Mika wrote in message <36a21507.0@news.povray.org>...
> >
> > The question is: Can we do anything about this?
>
> Take a look at "My Voting Philosophy" thread in irtc.general. The objective
> part
> in the voting process is the technical one. It would be a good idea to set
> a range -or
> part- of the total to each field, and then divide and assign those points.
> To me, such approach
> is entirely to everyone, this is, personal. But I think it is a good
> idea -to me, again- to unify concepts.
> Although such evaluation will be more work and time, it will be worthy
> regarding fairness.
>
> Marjorie Graterol
Perhaps the i.r.t.c. newsletter should address these issues. I'm not sure
of how many of the judges are currently monitoring these groups yet,
as they as still fairly new, and the importance if this issue could be
addressed to a larger body of people. Anyboy out there reading this
subsribe to the newsletter ? Who runs it and how does one submit
material to it ? Perhaps a digested collection of the responses to this
and the other similar threads could be sent out as and eduactionl
aid in the fairness and responsibility of being a judge.
--
Ken Tyler
tyl### [at] pacbell net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Simon de Vet wrote:
>
> Dan Connelly wrote:
>
> > The votes on strike.jpg are curious.
> >
> > I gave it 18-20-13
> I thought the Pearl Harbour pic was the best in terms of Tech merit, and
> Concept (not top, but very good), but I wouldn't have given it top honours
> for artistic merit.
Interesting.
I gave three 18's in artistic (the top scores on this area) :
strike
tbenc01 ( the fish and the flowers )
2010
The top score I gave for concept was 17, the image receiving
it cbh_fe (the birth image).
strike was the only 20 tech. tbenc01 was the only 19.
For me, tech is "given a sketch of the scene, how well has the artist
rendered the sketch?".
While artistic is "how well was the sketch generated?"
Concept is "how well did the sketch represent the topic?" A 20 concept
would be an award-winning cover on a book with a title of the topic
(in this case, "First Encounter")... it really needs to say something
special about it. Did strike meet this sort of standard? Not
even close. It was above average in concept, though (avg was 11.12,
stdev 3.7).
So I thought strike had all the right artistic elements:
Effective use of foreground and background.
Novel camera viewpoint.
Novel camera orientation.
Careful use of lighting.
Image conveys emotion.
Image conveys a story.
Effective use of color.
(I leave texture to tech.)
It wasn't blow-away incredible artistically... which is why I didn't
give it a 19 or 20.
But technically -- amazing. I was stunned. Nearly perfect -- down to the
historical details. Definitely professional grade stuff.
Dan
http://www.flash.net/~djconnel/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Dan Connelly wrote:
> But technically -- amazing. I was stunned. Nearly perfect -- down to the
> historical details. Definitely professional grade stuff.
>
> Dan
> http://www.flash.net/~djconnel/
Agreed. Had the contest round be titled "First Strike" it would have
had no contenders. But it's relevence to the topic was a bit dubious.
--
Ken Tyler
tyl### [at] pacbellnet
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <36a21507.0@news.povray.org>, Nieminen Mika <war### [at] cctutfi> wrote:
> This is exactly what I have been whining about several times here. As
>Dan excellently said it, cross-contamination of voting categories.
> A stunning looking image -> High score on each category.
> An ugly image -> low score on each category.
>
> The question is: Can we do anything about this?
Probably not. Remember that the artistic and interpretation are going to
depend heavily on the technical merit of the piece simply for natural
reasons; and the interpretation score will depend heavily on the artistic
merit of the piece.
An artist might have a brilliant artistic concept that falls perfectly
within the topic, but unless they have the technical skill to show that
concept to the voters, they're going to get lower artistic and topic
scores. The better they are technically, the better they'll be able to
show us their concept. This means that, given a number of images of
equally good artistic and interpretive merit in the artist's concept,
those whose artists have better technical skills will tend to higher
scores in those categories.
Similarly (but to a lesser extent, I think), an artist who is better at
expressing an artistic concept will also end up being better at fitting
their concepts to a theme. So that there will also be cross-contamination
from the "artistic" score to the "concept" score.
I suppose you could "do something about this" by basing your artistic and
concept scores on the text description, but then you'd be giving higher
scores for the skill of writing :*)
Jerry
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jerry Stratton wrote:
>
> In article <36a21507.0@news.povray.org>, Nieminen Mika <war### [at] cctutfi> wrote:
> > This is exactly what I have been whining about several times here. As
> >Dan excellently said it, cross-contamination of voting categories.
> > A stunning looking image -> High score on each category.
> > An ugly image -> low score on each category.
> >
> > The question is: Can we do anything about this?
>
> Probably not. Remember that the artistic and interpretation are going to
> depend heavily on the technical merit of the piece simply for natural
> reasons; and the interpretation score will depend heavily on the artistic
> merit of the piece.
>
> ...
> I suppose you could "do something about this" by basing your artistic and
> concept scores on the text description, but then you'd be giving higher
> scores for the skill of writing :*)
>
> Jerry
While I agree "contamination" is inevitable, and there is a strong correlation
in scores I give between categories, I still assert it is extreme that strike
ranked #1 in this category.
Re writing -- the writing is important. An example was the "PVC Man" image...
with an alien among toy men with a question mark over his head. Many voters
said the alien looked too much like the toys. The obvious interpretation
of this is a lack of "tech"... reusing a model. The author responded in email
that this was intentional -- the alien was confused because he had assumed the
figures, which bore his resemblance, were the most intelligent life forms,
and thus sought to contact them. Unfortunately this wasn't mentioned
in text, so his tech and his concept scores both likely suffered,
as voters assumed the simpler explanation. Knowing what he intended, I now
consider it a novel interpretation of the theme.
Dan
--
http://www.flash.net/~djconnel/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote:
> Perhaps the i.r.t.c. newsletter should address these issues. I'm not sure
> of how many of the judges are currently monitoring these groups yet,
> as they as still fairly new, and the importance if this issue could be
> addressed to a larger body of people. Anyboy out there reading this
> subsribe to the newsletter ? Who runs it and how does one submit
> material to it ? Perhaps a digested collection of the responses to this
> and the other similar threads could be sent out as and eduactionl
> aid in the fairness and responsibility of being a judge.
To subscribe to the mailing lists (if there is a "newsletter" I haven't
heard of it), proceed as follows:
For the announcements (a low volume read only list that announces
topics, results, policy changes etc.) send email with the word
"subscribe" in the subject line (the body will be ignored) to
irt### [at] niestucom .
For the stills list (low to medium volume) send email with the word
"subscribe" in the subject line (the body will be ignored) to
irt### [at] niestucom . Once subscribed, send messages for the list
to irt### [at] niestucom .
For the animation list (so far low volume) send email with the word
"subscribe" in the subject line (the body will be ignored) to
irt### [at] niestucom . Once subscribed, send messages for the
list to irt### [at] niestucom .
To unsubscribe from one of these lists, send a message with the word
"unsubscribe" in the subject (the body will be ignored) to the
appropriate request address. For example, you would unsubscribe from
the stills list with a message to irt### [at] niestucom with the
word "unsubscribe" in the subject.
There is no digest that I know of, but Dick Balaska has an archive of
many messages. He is trying to keep spammers out of the archive, so it
is passworded. Inquire on the list for the needed info.
Jerry Anning
cle### [at] dholcom
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jerry Anning wrote:
> Ken wrote:
>
> > Perhaps the i.r.t.c. newsletter should address these issues. I'm not sure
> > of how many of the judges are currently monitoring these groups yet,
> > as they as still fairly new, and the importance if this issue could be
> > addressed to a larger body of people. Anyboy out there reading this
> > subsribe to the newsletter ? Who runs it and how does one submit
> > material to it ? Perhaps a digested collection of the responses to this
> > and the other similar threads could be sent out as and eduactionl
> > aid in the fairness and responsibility of being a judge.
>
> To subscribe to the mailing lists (if there is a "newsletter" I haven't
> heard of it), proceed as follows:
>
> For the announcements (a low volume read only list that announces
> topics, results, policy changes etc.) send email with the word
> "subscribe" in the subject line (the body will be ignored) to
> irt### [at] niestucom .
>
> For the stills list (low to medium volume) send email with the word
> "subscribe" in the subject line (the body will be ignored) to
> irt### [at] niestucom . Once subscribed, send messages for the list
> to irt### [at] niestucom .
>
> For the animation list (so far low volume) send email with the word
> "subscribe" in the subject line (the body will be ignored) to
> irt### [at] niestucom . Once subscribed, send messages for the
> list to irt### [at] niestucom .
>
> To unsubscribe from one of these lists, send a message with the word
> "unsubscribe" in the subject (the body will be ignored) to the
> appropriate request address. For example, you would unsubscribe from
> the stills list with a message to irt### [at] niestucom with the
> word "unsubscribe" in the subject.
>
> There is no digest that I know of, but Dick Balaska has an archive of
> many messages. He is trying to keep spammers out of the archive, so it
> is passworded. Inquire on the list for the needed info.
>
> Jerry Anning
> cle### [at] dholcom
This is of course what I was talking about. Sorry about the confusion.
--
Ken Tyler
tyl### [at] pacbellnet
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jerry Stratton wrote:
> In article <36a21507.0@news.povray.org>, Nieminen Mika <war### [at] cctutfi> wrote:
> > This is exactly what I have been whining about several times here. As
> >Dan excellently said it, cross-contamination of voting categories.
> > A stunning looking image -> High score on each category.
> > An ugly image -> low score on each category.
> >
> > The question is: Can we do anything about this?
>
> Probably not. Remember that the artistic and interpretation are going to
> depend heavily on the technical merit of the piece simply for natural
> reasons; and the interpretation score will depend heavily on the artistic
> merit of the piece.
I don't agree on this, necessarily. Particularly the Art -> Tech link.
I cannot use the straight POV code. I just don't have the brain for it. Instead, I
use Moray. Because of this (and I won't discuss if this is fair or not, I don't
know) I will always recieve deductions on the tech marks. On the otherhand, I
think that Moray can (not necessarily by me, though) create pics that look as nice
as straight code. But because of this cross-voting, it would not recieve the Art
scores.
And while the Art and Interpretation/Composition scores are definitely linked, the
Tech and Interpretaion are not, at all.
Sometimes I feel a panel-judge only system may even work better, but that goes
against the spirit of the competition... maybe our current system with a "Panel's
Choice" awards?
Ah well :)
Simon
http://home.istar.ca/~sdevet
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Oh, I don't know, in some ways it's better to be a misunderstood, underappreciated
genius and martyr.
Dan Connelly wrote:
> Re writing -- the writing is important. An example was the "PVC Man" image...
> with an alien among toy men with a question mark over his head. Many voters
> said the alien looked too much like the toys. The obvious interpretation
> of this is a lack of "tech"... reusing a model. The author responded in email
> that this was intentional -- the alien was confused because he had assumed the
> figures, which bore his resemblance, were the most intelligent life forms,
> and thus sought to contact them. Unfortunately this wasn't mentioned
> in text, so his tech and his concept scores both likely suffered,
> as voters assumed the simpler explanation. Knowing what he intended, I now
> consider it a novel interpretation of the theme.
>
> Dan
>
> --
> http://www.flash.net/~djconnel/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
